JeanRenaud

Gone from "12 FPS, wobbly rockets, and 100% GPU usage" in the first version to "never less than 40 FPS, stiff rockets, and maximum 75% GPU usage" on 0.2.0.0, with my GeForce GTX 1660 Super. I would say that this progress is quite satisfying, for a system below minimum GPU recommended specs. Everything over 30 FPS is okay for me, and even better 40 FPS. And that is at max quality settings. Having 100% GPU usage could give more FPS, but i think by getting just 75% GPU usage, my GPU fans are making a lot less noise, which is a good compromise for me. Getting more FPS over 40 would not give any advantage in this kind of game where reflexes are not the point.

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: i7-6700K 4 GHz | GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Super | RAM: 16 GB When doing tutorials, pictures and videos are missing over 3D-rendered environment. There is only the border of the image or video. Th initial full-screen video also is not workiong, there is a black windows instead. Included Attachments: Ksp2.log

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: i7-6700K 4 GHz | GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Super | RAM: 16 GB Images talk for themselves. A pill-shaped object appeared in the KSC view after recovering a landed vessel. This "object" seems to be located at a specific place because when we zoom out, it "shrinks", but it will also disappear if we rotate the camera enough. The object seems to disable rendering of the water in the field of view, but not the land and the sky. Included Attachments:

I confirm, seen it too. 0.2.0.0

Killed two Kerbals because i did not have a heat shield in low orbit. In KSP1 the MK1 was able to withstand a low orbit re-entry without a heat shield. Why does this changed ? The fact that you have to research three levels deep of science to reach the "heat shield part" is quite surprising, since this is clearly required almost at the start of the campaign. Heat shield should be put inside the "Light Launchers" category, the same way it is put in the first category of the second page.

I did too. I killed two Kerbals. Why does KSP1 tolerates no-shield Low orbit, and KSP2 does not, is interesting. The other question: Since this is an issue now, why does they do not put the heat shield in the first objects we must "research" before going to orbit ? We have plenty of options of research and we probably can build something able to launch to other planets, without having unlocked the heat shield... that seems like a death trap considering the "experience" people got in KSP1. I noticed in KSP1 the specs of max temperature for MK1 is "850K inside / 2200K skin", and in KSP2 it is "850K" without giving skin/interior differentiation, could it be for this reason ? Kerbin atmosphere cannot be suddenly thicker... And why does the command pod explodes if there was no plasma trail ? Maybe just because the reentry effects are not yet perfect ?

So far, with my GTX 1660S (under minimum spec) and the rest of the PC over the minimum specs : 0.1.1.0 : ~15 FPS in every quality settings 0.1.2.0: ~19 FPS all HIGH, ~23 FPS all MED, ~30 FPS all LOW. I would say this is significantly better. Maybe poor for some people, but OK for me. This is nice too see an impact of the quality settings ! For me it seems that "Ground shading quality", "Texture quality" and "Cloud quality" will have a big impact on performance according to their level, but the remaining parameters can be maxed out without any negative effect. I prefer V-Sync OFF, because now with a reasonable FPS, but FPS still lower than the refresh rate, the V-Sync ON seems to cause hickups in the frames. [Edit :] I have set an hybrid V-Sync mode in my GPU settings, which is "close to the speed of the V-Sync off but without deformations", it seems to work better than the built-in V-Sync from the game.

Considering that framerate is still not at its best for me, I really do not wish any better graphics than what is currently here with KSP2.

Ok i see it now. I was just "Refreshing" the download page, maybe my browser was showing a cached version of the page. I logged off then on, then got back on the download page to fix the issue.

The patch is currently on Steam, but not yet on the KSP / Private Division website.

I think people have misunderstood "performance". They were talking about performance of the engines, because you all know it, engines are so performant that you can launch the entire KSC to space.

I think you need to remove a "zero" from your number.

My specs could be worst, though. I tried it while unplugging my dedicated GPU and using the integrated graphics card, an Intel HD 530, and i was getting 2 FPS, and that's half the time. The other half, the game crashed while loading a saved game. KSP 1 with low graphics setting on the integrated GPU was running ok, at least 20 FPS on ascent.

My specs : - CPU: Intel Core I7 6700K @ 4 GHz - GPU: NVidia GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 6 GB - System RAM: 16 GB DDR3 RAM - Storage: SSD M.2 - Display: 1080p, 60 Hz - Settings: 1080p, High/Low does not make any difference, so everything on HIGH but VSync OFF - Vessel parts count: 20 (including two launch clamps) Results : - 60 FPS in VAB - ±200 FPS in main menu - 60-70 FPS in space, looking only at the vessel and the sky - 15-20 FPS in space looking at Kerbin (filling 100% of the screen) and the vessel - 30-40 FPS at Kerbal Space Center - On LaunchPad, awaiting launch, 35-40 FPS orienting the camera to NOT see the ground, then 25-30 FPS when looking at the ground - On ascent after launch, 25-30 FPS orienting the camera to NOT see the ground, then drops as low as 12 FPS when looking at the ground Turning on VSYNC can drop the FPS to single digit in the worst case. Clearly, the physics have indeed an effect on the framerate (awaiting launch VS ascending), but they are not the only culprit, since looking at the planet worsens a lot the FPS. Again, outside the VSync, the other settings at HIGH or LOW does not seem to change the performance significantly. If i get 25 FPS at HIGH, i can get 27 FPS at low. 27 is still poor so i don't consider it an improvement.

Hi everybody, Good news ! I got an email from Private Division. The download issue is fixed. The 300 seconds expiring timestamp is still present in the download link, but it looks like now, it is probably just a limit for "starting" the download, not for "completing" it - I can't really know why, but it works. I downloaded the last version, 1.12.2, it took 8 minutes and everything is fine. I can open the ZIP file and everything.

Oh, ok. I guess i never gave much attention on this detail before. Let's hypothesize that the report is in fact a really lengthy one, and each time we review it, we only read a random part of it

This is not a red pupil. This seems to be the reflection of a point of light on the helmet's glass. Every helmet in this picture have a red spot on the glass.

I had this download halt issue too. I've discovered that Private Division servers are giving a download authorization token of only 5 minutes (300 seconds). So if your Internet connection is not fast enough, it will fail to download in full, for every browser you try, even if you downloaded it at 9% or 99%. I already sent a support request asking them to fix their bad server configurations.

I'm trying this in 1.12.2. The reports are indeed randomized, but "too much randomized". If I get one report, and review it 100 times later, each of the 100 reviews will differ...

I'm looking at the numbers and there is something wrong with the TAC Containers sizes VS contents. For example, with food-only container : The volume of the 1.25m part is 8 times bigger than the volume of 0.625m part, and 1.25m part contains 9.6 times the food units of the 0.625m part (240 vs 25) The volume of the 2.5m part is 8 times bigger than the volume of 1.25m part, and 2.5m part contains 9.2 times the food units of the 1.25m part (2200 vs 240) The volume of the 3.75m part is 3.375 times bigger than the volume of 2.5m part, and 3.75m part contains 1.5 times the food units of the 2.5m part (3300 vs 2200) The last one seems wrong to me, the 3.75 part should contain around "maybe" 3.5 times the food units of the 2.5m one... Is there some "hull thickness" we should account for calculating "internal volume" ? A wall thickness of 5 cm per radius (10 cm per diameter) gives : 1.25 m VS 0.625 m: 9.59x more volume, 9.6x more food 2.5 m VS 1.25 m: 8.71x more volume, 9.2x more food 3.75 m VS 2.5 m: 3.46x more volume, 1.5x more food The first two ratios seems legit, but the last ratio still does not makes sense. It's like the hull of the 3.75m part is 1.4 meter thick (per diameter) but the other sizes are 0.1 meter thick (per diameter).

Well maybe it's the sky that is too dark. But the mountains must not be lit that much if the sun has set. Using Spectra + Eve + Scatterer in stock.

What do you guys think of this scatterer issue ? The sun has set behind the mountains we see, and the mountains are BRIGHT. This does not make any sense. It's like the scatterer adds more and more "white light" the farther the terrain is. But scattering is not "light addition", it's just "light deflection". It is at its strongest intensity when there is a lot of light, and the scattering gets more dim near sunset/sunrise, and totally absent in night. My idea is that the scattering must be some kind of "transparency gradient". The farther object will be overlapped by a fully opaque color (this color must be the color of the "far" sky), then the overlapping gradient color becomes gradually transparent when the terrain gets nearer and nearer to the observer. Sometimes in the summer I observe that far mountains gets totally invisible because there is a lot humidity in the air. So the terrain very far gets the same color than sky. In a very dry day, we can see the mountains at their real color because there is no scattering (no humidity).

Kerbals already know that there's something wrong with the density of their planet, as stated in one of the contracts description :

I have issues with 1.8.1, sometimes crashing at load, sometimes crashing while playing. When crashing while playing, my monitors flickers on and off, and my browser dies (i even had to reboot the computer once, because all the windows were glitching). It seems that 1.8.1 uses a new version of Unity (2019.2.2f1) and Unity is messing with the video driver. https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/24058 I have to revert back to 1.7.3. This is a very serious issue.

For geeks, maybe, there is a plugin that permits Remote Procedure Calls from a terminal application. You have to install a mod in KSP. Maybe some basic graphic interface can be created in any IDE (Visual Basic, C#, etc) and programmed to exchange RPC calls with KSP, then update the "user interface" accordingly. No need to stretch KSP in two screens, but maybe you still have to set KSP in windowed mode (i'm not sure if full screen in one screen blanks out the other screen). Unfortunately, kRPC mod is handled up to 1.5.1, nothing for more recent versions of KSP.